Arctic cap on course for record melt: US scientists

Aug 22, 2012 by Shaun Tandon

Ice melts next to the village of Ny-Aalesundin Norway in 2009. The Arctic ice cap is melting at a startlingly rapid rate and may shrink to its smallest-ever level within weeks as the planet's temperatures rise, US scientists said Tuesday.

The Arctic ice cap is melting at a startlingly rapid rate and may shrink to its smallest-ever level within weeks as the planet's temperatures rise, US scientists said Tuesday.

Researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder said that the summer ice in the Arctic was already nearing its lowest level recorded, even though the summer melt season is not yet over.

"The numbers are coming in and we are looking at them with a sense of amazement," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the university.

"If the melt were to just suddenly stop today, we would be at the third lowest in the satellite record. We've still got another two weeks of melt to go, so I think we're very likely to set a new record," he told AFP.

The previous record was set in 2007 when the ice cap shrunk to 4.25 million square kilometers (1.64 million square miles), stunning scientists who had not forecast such a drastic melt so soon.

The Colorado-based center said that one potential factor could be an Arctic cyclone earlier this month. However, Serreze played down the effects of the cyclone and said that this year's melt was all the more remarkable because of the lack of special weather factors seen in 2007.

"The ice now is so thin in the spring just because of the general pattern of warming that large parts of the pack ice just can't survive the summer melt season anymore," he said.

Russia's Roshydromet environmental agency also reported earlier this month that the Arctic melt was reaching record levels. Several studies have predicted that the cap in the summer could melt completely in coming decades.

The thaw in the Arctic is rapidly transforming the geopolitics of the region, with the long forbidding ocean looking more attractive to the shipping and energy industries.

Five nations surround the Arctic Ocean -- Russia, which has about half of the coastline, along with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States -- but the route could see a growing number of commercial players.

The first ship from China -- the Xuelong, or Snow Dragon -- recently sailed from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Arctic Ocean, cutting the distance by more than 40 percent.

Egill Thor Nielsson, an Icelandic scientist who participated in the expedition, said last week in Reykjavik that he expected China to be increasingly interested in the route as it was relatively easy to sail.

But the rapid melt affects local people's lifestyles and scientists warn of serious consequences for the rest of the planet. The Arctic ice cap serves a vital function by reflecting light and hence keeping the earth cool.

Serreze said it was possible that the rapid melt was a factor in severe storms witnessed in recent years in the United States and elsewhere as it changed the nature of the planet's temperature gradients.

The planet has charted a slew of record temperatures in recent years. In the continental United States, July was the hottest ever recorded with temperatures 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 Celsius) higher than the average in the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Most scientists believe that carbon emissions from industry cause global warming. Efforts to control the gases have encountered resistance in a number of countries, with some lawmakers in the United States questioning the science.

The blanket of sea ice that floats on the Arctic Ocean appears to have reached its lowest extent for 2011, the second lowest recorded since satellites began measuring it in 1979, according to the University ...

Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on Sept. 14, ...

The 2011 Arctic sea ice extent maximum that marks the beginning of the melt season appears to be tied for the lowest ever measured by satellites, say scientists at the University of Colorado Boulder's National Snow and Ice ...

Recommended for you

In their open-access paper for Geology, Kimberly Genareau and colleagues propose, for the first time, a mechanism for the generation of glass spherules in geologic deposits through the occurrence of volcan ...

An analysis of buildings tagged red and yellow by structural engineers after the August 2014 earthquake in Napa links pre-1950 buildings and the underlying sedimentary basin to the greatest shaking damage, ...

As everyone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area knows, the Earth moves under our feet. But what about the stresses that cause earthquakes? How much is known about them? Until now, our understanding of ...

(Phys.org)—A trio of researchers with the Indian Institute of Science has found, via computer simulation, that deforestation in one part of the world can impact rainfall patterns in another. In their paper ...

It's no surprise that Arctic sea ice is thinning. What is new is just how long, how steadily, and how much it has declined. University of Washington researchers compiled modern and historic measurements to ...

The problem with "we" as far as humanity is concerned, is that "we" don't all speak the same language or say the same thing. China will not stop until it is on par with the west as far as standards of living, India....they're trying as well. In the face of these 2 mammoth populations any cuts we (the west) make as far as emissions will be more offset by growth from these 2. When US emissions drop to a 20 year low yet globally they still outpace the previous year....let's not delay the response to the warming for too long.

Sorry gmurphy - my post was aimed at the posters who keep repeating the claim that there has been no warming in the past 10 years. If you look at the link - you can see how clear the actual trend is.

rubber - I agree that we have immense barriers to overcome in terms of fashioning our response. Surely the first step is admitting the problem? I believe the solutions are waiting to be found - just look at this one program - http://www.greenp...-hunger/

@rubberman, I wouldn't go blaming China and India when the USA has yet to do anything meaningful itself. Not that any of that matters at this point anyway. We'll be heading above 3C increase, and my life is going to be "interesting" as a result.

@rubberman, I wouldn't go blaming China and India when the USA has yet to do anything meaningful itself. Not that any of that matters at this point anyway. We'll be heading above 3C increase, and my life is going to be "interesting" as a result.

No blame casting here. Just an observation. And yours is correct too, the industrialized nations haven't done anything to effectively curtail emissions either. I think all of our lives will be more "interesting" over the next 15-20 years....

djr - great link! It's nice to see a well thought out multi-pronged attack solving multiple problems. Admitting the existence of a problem is a necessary first step. Sadly it appears that every one won't be admitting THIS particular problem until the observed evidence is undeniable...which we both know is way too late.

I wonder if we are ready to stop arguing about IF it is warming - and really start focusing on how we should be responding to the warming..

agreed----we should accelerate it. the faster the arctic melts, the faster the water can begin absorbing heat and transporting it around the globe. if we are going to make russia northern europe canada and north america arable to yield more crops . otherwise, i think we will find a way to starve china and india because they rely on us to feed their exploding populations.

Sadly it appears that every one won't be admitting THIS particular problem until the observed evidence is undeniable...which we both know is way too late.

Quite possible.

I submit that it is in fact possible to get some softening on the other side. You're NOT going to do it with data, facts, charts or graphs though. They're not blind, they're afraid. They're afraid of the solutions being proposed. My suggestion is to move away from political proposals and towards realistic technical solutions. The more apolitical you make the solutions the "safer" they are for the other side to accept and consequently accept the reality of the problem.

@rubberman, I wouldn't go blaming China and India when the USA has yet to do anything meaningful itself. Not that any of that matters at this point anyway. We'll be heading above 3C increase, and my life is going to be "interesting" as a result.

Why not?

Is it really your moral position that in order for a criminal to be wrong for what they're doing they have to wait for all other criminals to be equally as bad?

What about the other way around?

Does criminal culpability operate as a communal agent? Yes this question is a trap...

if we are going to make russia northern europe canada and north america arable to yield more crops .

What is your basis for suggesting that a warmer globe will net an increase in crop yields? Is it just a personal belief - or do you have research and data that would support the premise? Surely one of the big issues we face in general is unintended consequences. I am not sure how we avoid unintended consequences - as the climate system is so complex. But surely trying to base decisions on research, and modeling, is at least a start. Are you sure the unintended consequences of your suggested acceleration will not be net reduction in crop yields?

So, you're crowing over a weather phenomenon, nothing more. And as you so gleefully crow, the global climate continues to exhibit no global warming since at least 2002. Even the most biased temperature index shows a gradual temperature decline:

Yes - it is about global temperature - look this graph is right off the home page of your beloved woodfortrees - can you see the global temperature graph - it is pretty clear. http://www.woodfo...60/trend

I am not crowing - I am concerned about the state of our planet - and yes it is personal - I want us to be intelligent.

Hey Uba - want to see how much warming there has been in the last 4 years? http://www.woodfo...08/trend That is exactly the same data set you chose - just picked a different start year - see how cherry picking works? I guess 4 years trumps 10 years right?

"It's not odd at all. Northern ice melt is more a product of weather, than global temperature." If ice melt is a product of weather - how do you explain the ongoing melting of the ice sheets? Wouldn't you expect to see a more random pattern?

Hey Uba - want to see how much warming there has been in the last 4 years? http://www.woodfo...08/trend That is exactly the same data set you chose - just picked a different start year - see how cherry picking works? I guess 4 years trumps 10 years right?

LOL. You still can't count to four! That's more than four and a half years!

Even though it's irrelevant to my claim, just for kicks and giggles, here's the last four years of the same data:

If ice melt is a product of weather - how do you explain the ongoing melting of the ice sheets? Wouldn't you expect to see a more random pattern?

So only the Northern Hemisphere counts now?

Antarctic ice has been trending upward. And, I never claimed we aren't in a relatively warm period, only that global warming appears to have stalled out for at least the last 10 years (in spite of rising CO2).

Seriously, what is it you really want? What would you consider a "win" for this argument?

That's a great question - looking at the bigger picture - the win for me is when we as a species make a priority of behaving intelligently. I see several barriers to this happening - but in general - religion, ideology, and group identity issues seem to be the most obvious. So you and Parker and Rygg feel the need to spam every article that mentions global warming - with your anti science dogma. So a win for me would be if you would stop it - let the scientists do their job - and let the chips fall where they may. Your need to deny reality is in there some place. You see the data shows that in line with scientific understanding - our globe is warming - and has been doing so for 100 years. Here is the data. http://www.woodfo...60/trend cont

cont. The 4 year vs. 4.5 year argument above serves as a perfect example of how we can prove what ever we want by cherry picking the data. So the honest approach is to look at as long a data trend as we can. I endorse science and rationalism - which is why I read sites like physorg - and I try to do a little bit to counter anti science rubbish. So a win for me would be to hear you say "yes - if you look at the 100 year trend - our globe is clearly warming - which should give us cause to sit up and pay attention - because it may indicate a serious problem - so I better shut up - and let the scientists figure out what is going on."

Well-you completely missed the point - which was - if you want to claim that ice melt is a function of weather - not climate - then you would not expect to see a pretty clear - downward trend. It would jump around a lot more. As the link I provided shows - arctic ice melt has been in one direction - down - which would not be consistent with ascribing it to weather.

"Then why aren't you happy warming has stalled out for at least the last 10 years?"

Well - I don't accept your premise that it has stalled out - and that premise is not supported by the data. However - even if there were a plateau - why do you not understand that climate is measured over multiple decades? If you look back over the data for the last 100 years - you can find times when there appears to be a plateau. This is noise - it does not detract from the bigger picture - the long term trend of warming. I conclude from your constant need to raise this issue - that you either don't understand the big picture - or more likely - you have an ideological ax to grind - and care nothing for truth or science.

the win for me is when we as a species make a priority of behaving intelligently. I see several barriers to this happening - but in general - religion, ideology, and group identity issues seem to be the most obvious.

Hmm... no mention made of the environment. So it really isn't about global warming to you at all then, now is it? It's about social/political control.

Why is it the worst students of history and social studies think it is they who have all the right answers?

What makes you think spamming this science site with your naive political agenda is going to change society?

let the scientists do their job

I'm happy to let them do their job. I'm not happy they've chosen to take on the additional task of social engineering.

our globe is warming - and has been doing so for 100 years.

For at least the last 10 of those 100 years, it hasn't. Here is the data:

The 4 year vs. 4.5 year argument above serves as a perfect example of how we can prove what ever we want by cherry picking the data.

No it doesn't. It proves the overall trend for the last 4.5 years is up, but the last 4 years is down. Neither mean anything in the context of: "The world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years."

So the honest approach is to look at as long a data trend as we can.

Again, you do know the world has been much warmer than today at times, right? So now you're ready to admit the long term trend is for cooling?

I endorse science and rationalism

Then why do you deny both science and rationalism in favor of an unworkable and unrealistic political agenda?

so I better shut up - and let the scientists figure out what is going on.

Please do.

I work for one of the most prestigious and forward thinking proactive environmental protection organizations in the world. What do you do?

if you want to claim that ice melt is a function of weather - not climate - then you would not expect to see a pretty clear - downward trend.

Obviously, I do expect the minimum to be smaller than the 20th century average, as the world did warm in the previous decades. As for now, it's holding its own. We're nowhere near having an ice free Arctic summer.

It would jump around a lot more. As the link I provided shows - arctic ice melt has been in one direction - down - which would not be consistent with ascribing it to weather.

"...the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) of Hydromet, reported on the downward trend recorded temperature in Antarctica. According to Vyacheslav Martyanov, the last few years, measurements of air temperature at the Russian Vostok Station is fixed steadily lowering the overall temperature of the air over Antarctica, which is not evidence of global warming, but rather, the beginning of the Ice Age.

...so in the next few years, scientists will fix in Antarctica a new low temperature record on Earth."

I don't accept your premise that it has stalled out - and that premise is not supported by the data.

That you don't accept the data, makes the data no less certain.

However - even if there were a plateau - why do you not understand that climate is measured over multiple decades?

It's measured in any increment of time you like.

If you look back over the data for the last 100 years - you can find times when there appears to be a plateau. This is noise - it does not detract from the bigger picture - the long term trend of warming.

Actually it does, as during those plateaus, the world wasn't warming.

I conclude from your constant need to raise this issue - that you either don't understand the big picture - or more likely - you have an ideological ax to grind - and care nothing for truth or science.

You've all but just admitted, this description fits you! You don't give a rat's ass about the environment. You're seeking social/political control.

The implication behind this is all too clear: At least seven billion people need to die so that a modern lifestyle can be enjoyed by the survivors. Dino infrastructure can be converted to renewables but that will still require a lifetime, in which the seven billion cannot be sustained. If peak oil is comes to term, then the seven billion will not have food in any case.

"It's measured in any increment of time you like." So if it is warmer today than it was yesterday - I can conclude that the climate is warming?

I work for one of the most prestigious and forward thinking proactive environmental protection organizations in the world. What do you do?

Market gardener by day - sign language interpreter by night. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying I should defer to your superior knowledge because you work for a prestigious organization? Have you published papers on climate change? I would be interested in reading them.

"You're seeking social/political control" That is an interesting conclusion you make. I admit to participating in the dialogue about issues such as science, and climate change - as I would like to see us progress as a species. You appear to me to have an anti science agenda - and to need to push it on the comments section of Physorg - are we not very similar? cont.

I see, so it's all part of the conspiratorial among the worlds scientists to overthrow the world.

Other than your insane ranting, do you have any evidence to support your lunatic claim?

"As has already been explained to you, the HadCRUT4 data was specifically manipulated to show excess global warming," - UbVonTard

The fact is, Hadcrut4 includes polar regions that were not included in Hadcrut3. And since the polar regions are warming very fast compared to the rest of the world, the global temperatures are higher in Hadcrut4 compared to 3.

Can you tell us why you continue to use dishonestly Hadcrut3 as a global temperature knowing full well that it ignores major parts of the Arctic and Antarctic?

"As for now, it's holding its own." So what accounts for the fact that we just broke the record in terms of ice extent? If as you claim - ice melt is a function of weather - and not climate - How do you account for this continued melt - that looks like we will be ice free in the summer by 2030? http://www.bloomb...sts.html

No it doesn't. It proves the overall trend for the last 4.5 years is up, but the last 4 years is down. Neither mean anything in the context of: "The world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years."

And I would extend that argument - and say that your harping on the last 10 years means nothing in the context of "the earth has been on a steady warming trend for the last 100 years".

Sorry, but you have been told at least a dozen times that climate is defined over periods of 30 years or more. Shorter periods are called weather.

Sorry Tard Boy, but you have been told at least a dozen times that, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) glossary definition of climate is:

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years."

If your IQ is so low that you can't remember the definition of Climate, then why should anyone take anything else you claim seriously?

Again, you do know the world has been much warmer than today at times, right? So now you're ready to admit the long term trend is for cooling?

Sure - and what does that mean for us at this point in time? Time scale is of course critically important in terms of identifying trends. Looking at the last 5 million years - definitely puts us in a downward trend http://en.wikiped...ange.png

So - as I suspect you know - it depends on your choice of time scale. What is most interesting to me - is that it is the scientists who have given us all of this very sophisticated historical data. It seems that you are willing to use their data to try to support your ideological position - but then attack them as fraudsters when their concerns do not jive with your agenda. Perhaps I am wrong - it just seems to me you want your cake - and to eat it.

The fact is, Hadcrut4 includes polar regions that were not included in Hadcrut3. And since the polar regions are warming very fast compared to the rest of the world, the global temperatures are higher in Hadcrut4 compared to 3.

As has already been shown to you, the Antarctic is seeing record cold.

Can you tell us why you continue to use dishonestly Hadcrut3 as a global temperature knowing full well that it ignores major parts of the Arctic and Antarctic?

Because that's what the HadCRUT4 website says to do? Are you not reading? Am I expecting to much of your chatbot programming?

On the distinction between weather and climate - again we often come down to who you listen to. This is from the NASA web site - "Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region." - http://www.nasa.g...ther.htm

"As for now, it's holding its own." So what accounts for the fact that we just broke the record in terms of ice extent?

Olympic athletes break records all the time. Does that mean the human race as a species is getting faster?

If as you claim - ice melt is a function of weather - and not climate - How do you account for this continued melt - that looks like we will be ice free in the summer by 2030?

That's a "boogeyman" claim, used to frighten small children. As has already been shown to you, the low exent this year has nothing to do with global temperatures, but rather is a result of regional weather patterns.

No it doesn't. It proves the overall trend for the last 4.5 years is up, but the last 4 years is down. Neither mean anything in the context of: "The world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years."

And I would extend that argument - and say that your harping on the last 10 years means nothing in the context of "the earth has been on a steady warming trend for the last 100 years".

100 years is even less relevant than the 4.5 and 4 year data sets. The context of my claim IS the last 10 years. Anything else is out of context.

You are no different to the cowardly vermin who came before you and insisted that the earth was the center of the universe, who claimed that Jupiter had no moons and who refused to look through telescopes to see their existence.

History is full of anti-science vermin like yourself who place ideology over reality.

it is the scientists who have given us all of this very sophisticated historical data. It seems that you are willing to use their data to try to support your ideological position - but then attack them as fraudsters when their concerns do not jive with your agenda.

I attack them as fraudsters when they make bogus claims which are not supported by the data. For instance, it's commonly claimed the rise in global temperatures is accelerating, when the temperatures are doing just the opposite.

Perhaps I am wrong - it just seems to me you want your cake - and to eat it.

Climate-------Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. In various parts of this report different averaging periods, such as a period of 20 years, are also used.

On the distinction between weather and climate - again we often come down to who you listen to. This is from the NASA web site - "Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region." - http://www.nasa.g...ther.htm

How do you distinguish between weather and climate ubavon?

Weather is what's happening now, and historically as measured in the short term (usually daily) increments. Climate is what you can expect based upon historical weather trends. Sometimes, you might talk about the summer climate in Paris, versus the winter climate (periods of a few months), or sometimes you might talk about geological epochs (millions of years). It's all a matter of context.

You said:"the win for me is when we as a species make a priority of behaving intelligently. I see several barriers to this happening - but in general - religion, ideology, and group identity issues seem to be the most obvious."

I see no mention of science or environmental concern. You just want social/political control. you want to decide for everyone what constitutes "intelligent behavior."

30 years is chosen by the WMO because that period offers a statistically robust measure of average weather trends on a scale that is significant to mankind.

Contrary to UbVonTard's ignorant assertion, Weather averaged over a month has no statistical relevance to global climate change since weather over a month is dominated by seasonal effects.

Weather averaged over a year on the other hand suffers from temporary fluctuations in the jet stream and ocean circulation patterns.

Weather averaged over a decade suffers from contamination from longer period ocean circulation patterns, some contamination from the 11 year solar cycle, and the effects of individual volcanoes.

The WMO uses 30 year period to define global climate since the above effects are largely averaged out.

UbVonTard's continual use of time periods shorter than this is an childishly ignorant attempt to assert short term fluctuations in place of long term climate change, as has been easily demonstrated by showing how cont.

his dishonest claims of "trend" vanish when data sets of slightly different lengths are used.

In order to be statistically significant a real "trend" must reflect the data over arbitrarily chosen endpoints that keep the data set approximately fixed in time and duration.

UbVonTard and the other dishonest Cherry Pickers are constantly found to be using data sets and start and stop data points that are specifically chosen to provide numbers that they find politically acceptable, but which in fact grotesquely misrepresent the real statistical trends.

Your continual stream of dishonesty does not constitute "intelligent behavior" no matter how you may wish to claim it does.

Intelligence - as has been proven though all of human history - is found in the scientific method of observing nature and accepting the reality of those observations.

Ignorance on the other hand comes in many forms, but the form you most commonly demonstrate is your insistence upon dishonestly misrepresenting observation through statistical fraud, in your continually failed attempt to force nature to conform to your sad personal political ideology.

"I see no mention of science or environmental concern. You just want social/political control. you want to decide for everyone what constitutes "intelligent behavior."" - UbVonTard

Dishonest, unthinking, vermin like yourself imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth was not the center of the universe, and have been the cause of most human suffering during the ascent of man.

"Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[3] The standard averaging period is 30 years,but other periods may be used depending on the purpose." - UbVonTard

In order to be statistically significant a real "trend" must reflect the data over arbitrarily chosen endpoints that keep the data set approximately fixed in time and duration.

Right. The last 10 years is quite easily defined and understood, even by children. Why is this so difficult for you?

Uba (is) using data sets and start and stop data points that are specifically chosen to provide numbers that they find politically acceptable, but which in fact grotesquely misrepresent the real statistical trends.

This is a lie. I specifically chose a data set which defines the current situation. Currently, there's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years. Why does this annoy you so? Shouldn't you be celebrating?

As Denialist Conservatives, Dishonesty is always their goal.

Well, being somewhat liberal, I wouldn't know. But it certainly seems to be your goal.

You lie so frequently that you no longer even recognize that you are doing it.

"When have you exposed anything I said as being factually incorrect?" - UbVonTard

More evidence of you are mentally diseased.

Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.

Intelligence - as has been proven though all of human history - is found in the scientific method of observing nature and accepting the reality of those observations.

Ignorance on the other hand comes in many forms, but the form you most commonly demonstrate is your insistence upon dishonestly misrepresenting observation through statistical fraud, in your continually failed attempt to force nature to conform to your sad personal political ideology.

Then why won't you accept the accumulated data from countless scientists these past 10 years? I'm sure if this same data set showed warming, you'd accept it, wouldn't you?

Dishonest, unthinking, vermin like yourself imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth was not the center of the universe, and have been the cause of most human suffering during the ascent of man.

No, that would be science deniers, like yourself. you don't like the facts, so you go to great ends to deny and obfuscate the facts.

And omitted those parts that you found did not mesh with your ideological expectations of what the definition should be.

Nope. Every relevant time period fits in the portion I provided. And I've provided other definitions which discuss various time periods too. You just ignore them all because they don't suit your agenda.

You layer one lie of omission, upon another, upon another, upon another.

"Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[3] The standard averaging period is 30 years,but other periods may be used depending on the purpose." - Uba

This is a far cry from your dishonest claim that...

"It's "measured in any increment of time you like." - Uba

According to this definition, whatever increment serves my purpose, is all I need.

You selected a data set that omits large portions of the Arctic and Antarctic.

It's the most widely used and recognized dataset. But others show no global warming for at least the last 10 years as well. Here are the four leading datasets, combined (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS):

You lie so frequently that you no longer even recognize that you are doing it.

"When have you exposed anything I said as being factually incorrect?" - UbVonTard

More evidence of you are mentally diseased.

Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.

This is a strawman and a red herring. You're simply trying to cover the fact that what I said was correct with a bunch of nonsense verbiage.

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.

"This is a strawman and a red herring. You're simply trying to cover the fact that what I said was correct with a bunch of nonsense verbiage." - UbVonTard

Wow - so much to respond to since I went to bed 5 hrs ago. Actually I am not going to spend my day on the computer - but I would like to ask you one question uba. The dialogue and name calling does not seem to me to be productive (hypocrite, liar etc.) - so I will just call it quits with this one question. You accuse me of wanting - and I quote "It's about social/political control." How do you draw this conclusion? - and exactly what kind of social/political control do you perceive I am trying to exercise? I told you that I engage in the debate on physorg because I am interested in science - and in advocating for rationalism and science. I have explained to you how it is that I perceive yourself and several others on this site as actively undermining science. You jump on almost every piece of scientific research about the environment, and aggressively refute the research. That smacks to me of an agenda. cont.

cont. - I have been transparent about my agenda - again - I advocate for rationalism and science. I choose to try to be a little involved by participating in the dialogue. Politically I am pretty mixed up. I can see the benefits of an open, free society, with an active and transparent gvt that is held accountable by an educated/informed populace. So finally on this thread - why (with specifics) do you accuse me of being a hpyocrite, and of wanting "social/political" control. I am one citizen, and feel I am pretty consistent, and trying to be ethical in terms of staying educated, informed, and involved in the debate.

Those who make it their business to lie - people such as yourself - present Hadcrut3 as a representation of Global Temperaturs, but they are not. And that documents yet another lie on your part.

But it is a global dataset.

"HadCRUT3 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The dataset is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.

You mean like you do, by going to extreme lengths to omit the data of the last 10 years?

Venditard, all you do is lie and call names. Any sane person reading your garbage is offended by your lies and petulance. Grow up.

Your claim was "record cold" in the context of climate. Clearly the Antarctic is experiencing near record warming with regard to climate - exactly contrary to your lie.

No, your data is about 15 years out of date. Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends. Even the scientists measuring it have expressed fears of an oncoming iceage.

Your statement is easily exposed as a lie by looking at GISS zonal means. Column 15 in the following data set.

As usual, your link was broken. When are you going to learn how to edit properly? Even children can do it.

Anyway, the Russians are measuring extreme cold. Here's the data:

"March was around minus 58 degrees Celsius, two degrees below normal temperature this time of year, and in April the average temperature was minus 67.8 degrees Celsius, which is 2.7 degrees below normal, ...so in the next few years, scientists will fix in Antarctica a new low temperature record on Earth.

Yes he did. In the post you're referring to he made no denial, and even if he had, it would only serve to make him a liar as he already spelled out his true intentions. He even admitted my conclusion was interesting.

Is it even possible for you to write a single sentence that doesn't contain a lie?

The dialogue and name calling does not seem to me to be productive (hypocrite, liar etc.)

So why don't you (and especially VendiTard) knock it off?

You accuse me of wanting - and I quote "It's about social/political control." How do you draw this conclusion?

By your own statement describing your definition of a win for this argument. You knock virtually every ideal that defines society, but say nothing about the environment.

and exactly what kind of social/political control do you perceive I am trying to exercise?

From your writings, it appears you're leaning toward socialist/communist ideals. But the specifics don't matter. The scary part is you apparently think you might somehow change how people think on deeply personal levels. Any such attempted control impinges on personal freedoms and historically leads to mass slayings.

Like I said before:

Why is it the worst students of history and social studies think it is they who have all the right answers?

I told you that I engage in the debate on physorg because I am interested in science

Then why do you constantly make personal attacks instead of simply discussing the science? Why can't you simply acknowledge that the global temperatures have been trending downward for at least the last 10 years?

and in advocating for rationalism

Whose ideal of rationalism?

I have explained to you how it is that I perceive yourself and several others on this site as actively undermining science.

In other words, you perpetrate personal attacks instead of discussing the actual science.

You jump on almost every piece of scientific research about the environment, and aggressively refute the research.

The only research I have aggressively refuted isn't even science. They're false claims which run contrary to the data. Science is all about the data.

You can't gather evidence the world is round, and declare (as a scientist) this proves it's flat, without someone noticing.

Then why do you deny the validity of the science of the last 10 years?

I choose to try to be a little involved by participating in the dialogue.

Name calling and personal attacks are poor excuses for dialogue.

Politically I am pretty mixed up. I can see the benefits of an open, free society, with an active and transparent gvt that is held accountable by an educated/informed populace.

Grand ideals, indeed. So how does this jibe with wanting to control how people think about very personal ideals like religion, ideology, and association? Maybe you think it's logical to state; you can have all the freedom you want, except you can't believe in a deity? ...can't advocate? ...can't associate with so and so?

Do you not remember admitting to this yourself in regards to cherry-picking? That was actually a misunderstanding on my part as to your use of quote marks - my understanding was that you were referring to yourself as a hypocrite - my mistake - my apologies. But the point still remains - what is the reason you would refer to me as a hypocrite?

I have in no way talked of wanting social/political control. You asked what would be a win in this situation for me - and I answered - but I in no way discussed any need that I have to exercise social/political control.

And, you go on and on accusing me of name-calling, when it is you who has been the far greater perpetrator.

We can go around in circles counting name calling. I am very new to this type of debate format, and admit to having been pulled in to an emotional level of debate - and resorting to name calling. For that I apologize - and intend to be very cautious from this point on to stay with a dispassionate discussion. cont.

Show some ethics. Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years.

Sure - a review of numerous data sets that look simply at the last 10 years - would indicate that temperatures have been at a plateau for that time period - you are correct. Below I would like to explain why I have a problem with you constantly using this piece of data to respond to articles talking about climate change issues. Cont.

cont. - If you look at any long term climate data set http://www.woodfo...rom:1895 you see a clear trend of warming. This is in line with current scientific understanding of the climate - an understanding that is causing the scientists studying the problem to be concerned about the long term picture. Additional data seems to come in by the day (glacier melt, ice sheet melt, ocean rise etc.) to validate this understanding. There is clearly a community of folks who enjoy muddying the waters - and almost seem to delight in spreading confusion regarding a very complex issue. Thus we have an interesting situation - 98 % of Canadians believe the globe is warming http://www.huffin...860.html compared to just 62 % of Americans - http://thinkprogr...ratures/ cont.

That is a very interesting statistic - and I personally think it reflects a problem in the education level of Americans, their ability to think critically, and also factors such as a very superficial media that refuses to do a good job of covering issues. So - when I see a group of people who want to spam every article that mentions the climate with deceptive information - clearly designed to muddy the waters - cherry pick data - and spread confusion - I am trying to be a part of pushing back. If you look at one of those long term data sets - you will see periods of plateau. Some showing 1940 - 1980 as flat. But this does not detract from the big picture - that shows a long term temperature increase. So from where I sit - throwing out stuff like "there has been no warming in the past 10 years" seems to be to be part of that design to muddy the waters and spread confusion. So I am trying to be a part of the push back against that - I am at least transparent about my agenda.

Global warming is a natural and cyclic event caused by a coincidence of precession and our position within the Earth's orbital path around the sun. That alone can cause increase in CO2 levels via natural pathways. If we were to insulate perfectly, ie: humanity no longer "contributes" to warming by artificially raising CO2 levels or even by the venting of stray heat into the atmosphere by activity, the process would still occur, and Arctic ice would continue to melt more and more.

Global warming is a natural and cyclic event caused by a coincidence of precession and our position within the Earth's orbital path around the sun. That alone can cause increase in CO2 levels via natural pathways. If we were to insulate perfectly, ie: humanity no longer "contributes" to warming by artificially raising CO2 levels or even by the venting of stray heat into the atmosphere by activity, the process would still occur, and Arctic ice would continue to melt more and more.

True .... err, but not at present, as the Earth's orbital characteristics are in a "cold" phase.

"Global warming is a natural and cyclic event" Would you have any sources to back up your claim? Are you talking Milankovitch cycles? These are 26,000 year, and 41,000 year cycles. Climate scientists are of course aware of these cycles - and understand that they do not account for the current warming trend. "Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle." From - http://ossfoundat...h-cycles

Earlier this spring, he claimed that that the U.S. winter was not unusual in it's warmth, when in fact it was a record warm winter.

In spring he claimed that there was no crop damage to mid April frosts, when in fact near 100% crop losses in apples, cherries, plumbs, peaches, and strawberries, in much of New York state and Southern Ontario.

UbVonTard then went on to claim that there was no drought developing in the U.S. grain belt. A drought that has been fully realized as the worst since the dust bowl and which has caused corn and soybean prices to near historic highs.

UbVonTard isn't the most prolific Liar on PhysOrg. ParkerTard and RyggTard are more prolific liars. But UbVonTard is giving them a run for their money.

It looks like this year, Arctic ice area will be .4 million square kilometers less than the previous minimum ever recorded. A reduction of an additional 13 percent over the previous minimum.

Open water in the arctic means accelerated global warming and in addition it means greater variability in the offset of the polar vortex, which means greater weekly variability in the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.

In addition there will be a continuing movement of temperature regions northward, with the mid U.S. reverting to the same arid conditions that are now experienced in Texas. The U.S. grain belt will continue to revert to desert.

"... the results show that it's now warmer on James Ross Island now than it has been at any time during at least the last millennium (see Figure 2), and its unequivocal that this recent warmth led to the demise of ice shelves in the area over the last few decades. Moreover, the rate of recent century-scale warming is at the upper limit of rates in the pre-anthropogenic era: Mulvaney et al. find that the most recent warming is faster than 99.7% of any other given 100-year period in the last 2000 years." - RealClimate - Aug 23, 2012 - Eric J. Steig

"The scary part is you apparently think you might somehow change how people think on deeply personal levels."

Correct. Why else would I spend hours at a computer - trying to make an argument for a more intelligent world? Why else do we engage in dialogue? I have many friends who are deeply religious. They continually try to change how I think on a deeply personal level. I happily return the compliment. Every Sunday morning across the U.S. - tens of thousands of preachers stand in a pulpit and try to change how people think - on a deeply personal level.

"From your writings, it appears you're leaning toward socialist/communist ideals." I have no idea how you conclude this. I did state earlier that politically I am pretty mixed up. I certainly do not lean towards socialism or communism - I lean more towards advocating for personal liberties - although I recognize a limited role for government in protecting the common good. Do you recognize this role?

cont. - If you look at any long term climate data set you see a clear trend of warming.

Indeed. But currently, it is not warming.

The problem for me lies in the numerous claims that "global warming is accelerating." This is clearly false, as warming has stopped, and it stopped at least 10 years ago.

Additional data seems to come in by the day (glacier melt, ice sheet melt, ocean rise etc.) to validate this understanding.

This is where you go off the tracks. This is purely anecdotal data ...much of which has very little to do with global temperatures. The proof is in the current ice conditions in the North. It being cooler than it was in 2007, proves Northern ice melt isn't entirely driven by temperature. The correlation is not one to one. Other factors need to be considered.

There is clearly a community of folks who enjoy muddying the waters - and almost seem to delight in spreading confusion regarding a very complex issue.

By implication, this is another personal attack.

I would argue the people delighting in spreading confusion are those whom deny and obfuscate the facts ...one of which being there has been no global warming in at least the last 10 years.

Thus we have an interesting situation - 98 % of Canadians believe the globe is warming compared to just 62 % of Americans

This simply proves the Americans are better educated to the fact there has been no global warming in at least the last 10 years.

To state the earth is warming, is false. To state it has warmed, is true. To state the earth may (or may not) continue to warm, is speculative. To state scientists (as a unified group) expect it to continue to warm, is false. To state some (or many) scientists expect it to continue to warm, is true. Do you see the differences?

when I see a group of people who want to spam every article that mentions the climate with deceptive information

So now the fact you just admitted to is "deceptive?"

I am trying to be a part of pushing back.

Pushing back against what? Facts? You're doing nothing more here than admitting you're a denier.

If you look at one of those long term data sets - you will see periods of plateau. Some showing 1940 - 1980 as flat. But this does not detract from the big picture - that shows a long term temperature increase.

By implication, you're stating that if I flip a coin a few times and it comes out heads, it must therefore come out heads the next time I flip the coin.

Those plateaus may, or may not be indicative of the current situation. we can't know until things change which way it will go. All we can unequivocally state is, currently, the world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years.

Over the last 24 hours I count you being caught telling around 2 dozen lies. Not least of which is in presenting HadCrut4 data as an up to date global data set when it omits more than the last year and a half.

Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years. - Uba

You have continued to repeat the lie multiple times after being corrected and exposed as a liar each time.

Then explain how all the major global temperature indexes, combined, show this very same trend:

You were caught lying when you claimed "the HadCRUT4 data was specifically manipulated to show excess global warming"

It is, and you proved it with your own reference. They added regions of temperature that weren't previously included (or even measured), and only extrapolated (guessed) what the previous comparable data would be (apparently, in order to elevate their "warming trend"). One wonders if this is why they aren't continually updating it, as promised.

In spring he claimed that there was no crop damage to mid April frosts, when in fact near 100% crop losses in apples, cherries, plumbs, peaches, and strawberries, in much of New York state and Southern Ontario.

This is another VendiTard lie. I caught him ,red-handed, lying about cherry crop damage that hadn't occured. Later tart cherry crop damage did occur and he's trying to claim this is the crop damage he claimed (6 weeks before it actually happened). Also, the crop damage wasn't nearly so dramatic. As I showed him, the tart cherry crop was damaged, but the sweet cherry crop was a bumper harvest.

Uba then went on to claim that there was no drought developing in the U.S. grain belt. A drought that has been fully realized as the worst since the dust bowl and which has caused corn and soybean prices to near historic highs.

This is a lie. I never claimed there wasn't a drought. I just said (in the context of the time) that drought (in general) wasn't unusual. I even provided an AMS reference which states drought in the U.S. is a normal condition.

Uba isn't the most prolific Liar on PhysOrg. NotParker and Rygg are more prolific liars. But Uba is giving them a run for their money.

I'd say the award for the most prolific liar on PhysOrg clearly belongs to VendiTard. I think he also owns the award for being the most obnoxious and unpleasant commenter on PhysOrg.

Open water in the arctic means accelerated global warming and in addition it means greater variability in the offset of the polar vortex, which means greater weekly variability in the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.

Yeah? So what do record cold temperatures in the Antarctic mean?

In addition there will be a continuing movement of temperature regions northward, with the mid U.S. reverting to the same arid conditions that are now experienced in Texas. The U.S. grain belt will continue to revert to desert.

Already falling down on your promise to argue dispassionately, are we? - nope - very dispassionately pointing out that calling someone a hypocrite - and not being willing to explain why you would use this insult is childish.

"Why do you have "a problem" with the facts? If they are indeed fact, then they are unequivocal."

I acknowledged the facts - and went on to point out why I have a problem with your use of the facts. As you say - "in no way denies there has been global warming previously, and in no way denies global warming may (or may not) resume." In fact I would add to that - I feel global warming is continuing today - as evidenced by melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels etc. Obviously these things are complex - and there is fly wheel effect.

"To me, facts and truth matter. That they apparently don't matter to you, is shameful."

Facts and truth do matter very much to me - you are just making this personal now. Perhaps the reality is that this kind of discussion almost always ends in people calling each other tards, and liars, and hypocrites - and insulting each other on a personal level - perhaps that is programmed in to the human dna. I will take some time off to mull this one. Cheers.

Why else do we engage in dialogue? I have many friends who are deeply religious. They continually try to change how I think on a deeply personal level. I happily return the compliment. Every Sunday morning across the U.S. - tens of thousands of preachers stand in a pulpit and try to change how people think - on a deeply personal level.

The difference is your desire to make these changes mandatory. And you would eliminate any dissent.

I certainly do not lean towards socialism or communism - I lean more towards advocating for personal liberties

Then why would you disavow the personal liberties of belief, ideology, and association?

although I recognize a limited role for government in protecting the common good. Do you recognize this role?

I recognize a role for government in providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty. It's in the U.S. Constitution.

Already falling down on your promise to argue dispassionately, are we? - nope - very dispassionately pointing out that calling someone a hypocrite - and not being willing to explain why you would use this insult is childish.

Isn't it more childish to deny that I did give reasons why I called you a hypocrite (not the least of which is you admitted it yourself)?

"Why do you have "a problem" with the facts? If they are indeed fact, then they are unequivocal."

I acknowledged the facts - and went on to point out why I have a problem with your use of the facts.

""Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends." - Uba Indeed. The new cold temperature record was set on June 11th of this year."

Bollocks ... you're using weather as a cherry-pick in your climate agenda. I can quote a record high for you to counter .........." Santa delivered a record-breaking summer day to the South Pole this year.

The temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole research station hit 9.9°F (-12.3°C) on Dec. 25 (2011), beating the old record of 7.5°F (-13.6°C) set on Dec. 27, 1978, reported the Weather Underground."

"To me, facts and truth matter. That they apparently don't matter to you, is shameful."

Facts and truth do matter very much to me

Then why do you work so diligently to obfuscate the facts?

you are just making this personal now.

Not intentionally. But if a science discussion isn't about observations and facts, what good is it? Without adherence to the data, we might as well be talking about fairies and unicorns.

Perhaps the reality is that this kind of discussion almost always ends in people ...insulting each other on a personal level - perhaps that is programmed in to the human dna.

Sadly, this observation seems accurate. I wish it were otherwise. But people seem to take disagreement as a personal insult. If everyone consciously chose to endeavor to keep it dispassionate, and focus on the data, I think it could be sharply improved.

You admonish me regarding name calling. You claim the moral high ground in terms of your regard for truth, science and facts. Here is a quote from a recent post of yours "Name calling and personal attacks are poor excuses for dialogue."

And then on the same thread you use these terms - "idiot, tard, diseased mind, mentally diseased, liar, hypocrite."

You replied with "So "global warming" isn't about global temperatures now? It's about the weather?Gee, then what does the recent worldwide cold temperature record set on June 11th, 2012 tell you?"

I can see from the posts that you seem to be just spaming but in case you are really serious, I hope you know that DJR is correct and you don't have a clue.

Quoting a single temperature on one days is weather. I am sure you know that. To claim otherwise is just obstinate.

To ignore the trend of temperatures that is upward is to show ignorance of interpretation of data from noise (quoting your 10 year period that is arbitrairly chosen (as you noted by saying you can pick any dates you want).

Finally, you must know that melting of a material is nearly isothtermal (it would be if it were pure water but it has salt). Continued

Since melting takes place isothermally and requires much more heat than raising the temperature of either a gas or liquid (or in the case of water, even solids) then you must recognize the melting of huge sections of the Arctic to be important. If you don't recognize that then you really need to take a first physics course. I am sure this will be wasted on you (from what I have seen) but I do have to support those who are trying to use reason with you.

You admonish me regarding name calling. You claim the moral high ground in terms of your regard for truth, science and facts. Here is a quote from a recent post of yours "Name calling and personal attacks are poor excuses for dialogue."

And then on the same thread you use these terms - "idiot, tard, diseased mind, mentally diseased, liar, hypocrite."

I am just asking - that is all.

Most of those are taglines from Vendicar Decarian that I simply repost back to him.

I have also called him, and rarely others, an "idiot" from time to time. But again it's in response to his/their extreme rudeness.

I don't consider deservedly calling someone a hypocrite to be name-calling, as it's more an observation than an affront. I'll even admit that at times I too have been, or may appear to be, a hypocrite. But I do consciously endeavor to avoid being so.

You replied with "So "global warming" isn't about global temperatures now? It's about the weather?Gee, then what does the recent worldwide cold temperature record set on June 11th, 2012 tell you?"

I can see from the posts that you seem to be just spaming but in case you are really serious, I hope you know that DJR is correct and you don't have a clue.

Quoting a single temperature on one days is weather. I am sure you know that. To claim otherwise is just obstinate.

I'm merely demonstrating that quoting weather reports is meaningless in terms of the global warming debate. If it's the single day reference that bothers you, didn't you notice where I previously posted data wherein the Russians reported an extended cold spell in the Antarctic? At that time, they thought they'd reach a new low in a few of years, not this year!

To ignore the trend of temperatures that is upward is to show ignorance of interpretation of data from noise (quoting your 10 year period that is arbitrairly chosen (as you noted by saying you can pick any dates you want).

Aparently then, you rank my posts without even bothering to read them. Shame on you. The 10 year period is not chosen arbitrarily.

I do not ignore the previous warming trend, and have readily admitted that up to at least 10 years ago, the world had been warming. The 10 year period merely reflects a more contemporaneous picture of what's going on with the global climate.

And seriously, why aren't you happy about this?

To suggest your car is accelerating when in fact it had been accelerating and you're now cruising just under the speed limit would be false, wouldn't it? How is this any different? Maybe you think a cop should give you a ticket for exceeding the speed limit with the argument that you're accelerating, because you had been accelerating?

Finally, you must know that melting of a material is nearly isothtermal (it would be if it were pure water but it has salt.

Since melting takes place isothermally and requires much more heat than raising the temperature of either a gas or liquid (or in the case of water, even solids) then you must recognize the melting of huge sections of the Arctic to be important. If you don't recognize that then you really need to take a first physics course. I am sure this will be wasted on you (from what I have seen) but I do have to support those who are trying to use reason with you.

Essentially you're stating the ice melt is an indicator the whole system has warmed. As I've expressed earlier, I do not deny the globe has warmed. I'm only stating it apparently stopped warming at least 10 years ago.

And the ice isn't "disappearing." It will return when next the sun dips below the Arctic horizon. Annual melts have no significant lasting effect on global temperatures.

"I have also called him, and rarely others, an "idiot" from time to time. But again it's in response to his/their extreme rudeness." - Uba

In other words you refer to me as an Idiot not because you believe that I am an idiot, but because you don't like the manner in which I refer to you.

I reserve the term for when you rudely state something truly and blatantly idiotic. If I genuinely expressed my disdain for your intellectual capacity, my responses would be filled to overflowing with the term.

I on the other hand, refer to you as a congenital Liar because you have repeatedly proven yourself to be a congenital liar.

What does that even mean? Are you really suggesting newborn babies can be liars? LOL. Do you even begin to see what I mean here? Your idiocy knows no bounds!

Your claim then is then that your use of a non-global data that omits the polar regions is either not misleading, or it is not intentional.

Yet after dozens of corrections you continue to use that data set.

This means that you are either so stupid that you don't have the capacity to learn after repeatedly being corrected, or that you are so stupid that you don't believe that omitting the polar regions is misleading - despite the fact that they the new data set includes them explicitly for the purpose of not being misleading.

"Nothing I write is intentionally misleading" - UbVonTard

Now, since It is hard to believe that anyone who has enough brain power to breathe, could be so stupid, I can only conclude that you are a liar when you claim that you do not intentionally mislead.

So what is it? Are you a low grade moron? Or are you a congenital liar?

Trend line significance is dependent upon how well the data fits the trend line in question. In your case over 10 years the computed trend is dwarfed by the excursions the data takes above and below the computed line.

With such large excursions, the computed trend is mostly statistical noise rather than signal. As a result the error bars in the trend line are large - 10 times larger than you slope you claim.

Using a longer time period (more than 10 years) or having data with less noise will produce trend lines with more statistical confidence, and less error in the slope.

Again this is basic high school statistics that you are failing to comprehend.

Are you pleading ignorance in order to explain why you have been chronically lying for the last several years?

Your claim then is then that your use of a non-global data that omits the polar regions is either not misleading, or it is not intentional.

Yet after dozens of corrections you continue to use that data set.

It's a standard global climatological dataset.

This means that you are either so stupid that you don't have the capacity to learn after repeatedly being corrected, or that you are so stupid that you don't believe that omitting the polar regions is misleading - despite the fact that they the new data set includes them explicitly for the purpose of not being misleading.

Where is it written I have to use only VendiTard approved datasets?

Even so, GISTEMP shows the same cooling trend. Do you have an argument to make against GISTEMP now?

You have rolled a die 10 times and come up with 2 ones. Your claim is that the die is biased low. That claim is statistically unfounded because even though there is no statistical error in measuring each role of the die, there is still a good chance that the two ones were achieved by statistical chance rather than real bias.

This is basic high school statistics. If you are incapable of comprehending basic statistics then you have zero basis for claiming that your nonsense plot has any statistical significance.

On the other hand you may now wish to claim that your plot has no statistical significance, in which case you will have just admitted that your two years of arguing that the earth is cooling is based on nothing but ignorance on your part.

False. I reserve the term "Tard" to those who make patently false claims, engage in sophistry, advance unstable ideologies, unwitting hypocrisy, self contradiction, or other mentally retarded behavior when they should know better.

You... You are the King of Tards.

"More lies. You use these on anyone who disagrees with you." - UbVonTard

This is a dead giveaway that you're a chatbot. Chatbots substitute ad hominem attacks for valid arguments because it gives the appearance of being an argument, even though it doesn't really address the topic in discussion.

Liar. You can't even use a dictionary without dishonest misrepresentation.

You know... Like the definition of "climate" that you took from IPCC AR4 and then dishonestly altered.

"uncertainty depends on both the accuracy and precision of the measurement instrument. " - UbVonTard

From your own source...

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome.

Measurement of Uncertainty: A set of possible states or outcomes where probabilities are assigned to each possible state or outcome – this also includes the application of a probability density function to continuous variables

Risk: A state of uncertainty where some possible outcomes have an undesired effect or significant loss.

Measurement of Risk: A set of measured uncertainties where some possible outcomes are losses, and the magnitudes of those losses – this also includes cont..

"Another lie on you part. As I've shown, the depth of the ice on the Antarctic continent is increasing." - Uba

LOL. Another dead giveaway you're a chatbot. Chatbots have difficulty interpreting links (the data generally has to be manually entered). This is why VendiTard often takes days to recognize facts from links. For instance, has anyone else noticed he hasn't commented on the latest low temperature record? I wonder how long it will take for someone to input the data.

Trend line significance is dependent upon how well the data fits the trend line in question. In your case over 10 years the computed trend is dwarfed by the excursions the data takes above and below the computed line.

With such large excursions, the computed trend is mostly statistical noise rather than signal. As a result the error bars in the trend line are large - 10 times larger than you slope you claim.

Using a longer time period (more than 10 years) or having data with less noise will produce trend lines with more statistical confidence, and less error in the slope.

Wrong. The mean is the hard data averaged. The trend is the average of the mean. These do not change, unless the hard data itself changes. Technically, you can't go back and re-measure a temperature. At most, you might find a rare data input error.

Sorry Tard Boy, but that is not what statistical significance is about.

"LOL. Now all you're saying is the mean and trend are what they are, and you don't even know it!" - UbVonTard

If you have no interest in making statistically significant claims, or learning what statistical significance is, then your comments can be entirely discounted on the basis that they stem from self imposed ignorance on your part.

Your claims have been shown to be statistically invalid. Your data sources have been shown to be biased. You have been repeatedly been shown to selectively and dishonesty quote sources, and you have been repeatedly caught lying with almost every sentence you write.

You have rolled a die 10 times and come up with 2 ones. Your claim is that the die is biased low. That claim is statistically unfounded because even though there is no statistical error in measuring each role of the die, there is still a good chance that the two ones were achieved by statistical chance rather than real bias.

This is basic high school statistics. If you are incapable of comprehending basic statistics then you have zero basis for claiming that your nonsense plot has any statistical significance.

On the other hand you may now wish to claim that your plot has no statistical significance, in which case you will have just admitted that your two years of arguing that the earth is cooling is based on nothing but ignorance on your part.

False. I reserve the term "Tard" to those who make patently false claims, engage in sophistry, advance unstable ideologies, unwitting hypocrisy, self contradiction, or other mentally retarded behavior when they should know better.

Liar. You can't even use a dictionary without dishonest misrepresentation.

You know... Like the definition of "climate" that you took from IPCC AR4 and then dishonestly altered.

Another Venditard lie. I didn't alter the definition by even one letter. And I clearly identified the source and provided links.

"uncertainty depends on both the accuracy and precision of the measurement instrument. " - Uba

From your own source...

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome.

Measurement of Uncertainty: A set of possible states or outcomes where probabilities are assigned to each possible state or outcome – this also includes the application of a probability density function to continuous variables

And weather reporting is a very certain science. Temperature records are quite reliable and well maintained.

Sorry Tard Boy, but that is not what statistical significance is about.

"LOL. Now all you're saying is the mean and trend are what they are, and you don't even know it!" - UbVonTard

If you have no interest in making statistically significant claims, or learning what statistical significance is, then your comments can be entirely discounted on the basis that they stem from self imposed ignorance on your part.

Your claims have been shown to be statistically invalid. Your data sources have been shown to be biased. You have been repeatedly been shown to selectively and dishonesty quote sources, and you have been repeatedly caught lying with almost every sentence you write.

If HadCrut3 was global - moron - then it would not have omitted large regions of the north and south poles, and it wouldn't have been replaced with HadCrut4 which does a better job of including the polar regions in total.

"It's a standard global climatological dataset." - UbVonTard

You have been told this repeatedly. Your failure to correct your past mistakes, and your insistance on repeating those mistakes when you have been corrected, is the behavior of a congenital liar.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

"Most of those are taglines from Vendicar Decarian that I simply repost back to him." This is not accurate. I carefully looked back through the thread - and selected language that you had initiated. Each of those words were insults - that you yourself initiated towards another poster. I acknowledge that I have been guilty of insulting other posters in the past - for which I apologize. I now believe that kind of dialogue undermines my credibility, and justifies others for ignoring anything I have to say further. I was trying to point out that you so clearly try to take the moral high ground with your claim of only being interested in truth, and facts, and science. You state that name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue. You then engage in the exact behavior you criticize. And then you dismiss the contradiction as - those are just tag lines I posted back. Odd!

"Another lie on your part. That the confidence can deviate from the mean, in no way affects the apparent trend."

Confidence limits do not "deviate from the mean".

Confidence limits are a means by which computed numbers are applicable to the real world.

With your data set, the 90 percent confidence limits for the slope of the curve - not the mean as you ignorantly put it - are ten times larger than the slope that you claim.

This would be similar to you claiming that the average height of people was falling by 2 inches per decade when in fact your numbers show that the real trend could be anywhere between an increase of 22 inches a decade or a shrinkage of 18 inches per year.

With errors like that, there is no statistical validity to a claim of a shrinkage of 2 inches per decade.

You show a near zero ability to understand basic grade school statistics beyond an ability to compute simple averages. Your ability to conceive of any other kind of statistic is ZERO.

HadCrut3 simply "OMITS" polar regions for which they had no coverage at the time.

By omitting a region the data set becomes only a subset of the true globe.

"It is, and you proved it with your own reference. They added regions of temperature that weren't previously included (or even measured), and only extrapolated (guessed) what the previous comparable data would be (apparently, in order to elevate their "warming trend")." - UbVonTard

You are transparent.

You insist on using the outdated HadCrut3 data set specifically because it has built into it a bias to colder temperatures because it omits large regions of the rapidly warming poles.

And since deceit, dishonesty and denial is how you validate your Conservative ideology, you continue to use HadCrut3 in order to perpetuate the lie.

The temperatures on James Ross Island are determined through proxies such as relative isotopic abundances in mollusk shells that were growing at the time, the with of growth rings in those shells, the size and type of carbonate grains in the soil, and a host of other measurements.

"Like anyone was there with a thermometer 1,000 years ago!" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard's is not only ignorant of early high school statistics, but ignorant of science in general.

Secondly, you complain that I'm "using weather as a cherry-pick in my climate agenda." and then go on to use weather as a cherry-pick in YOUR climate agenda (can you say, "hypocrite").

And thirdly, you have the mistaken impression that I have a "climate agenda."

Not hypocritical at all - I was merely turning your argument on it's head ( by way of irony ). As I clearly implied, you can't use weather to argue a climate trend. And yes, you do have an agenda - arguing that the last 10 yrs have seen no cooling, whilst using nonsense statistical analysis. No comment on the Radiosonde sourced tropospheric data for Antarctica I see.

Another VendiTard lie. This is a Red Herring argument. I never said I didn't edit it. I said I didn't alter even one letter. I edited it for space considerations, while being careful not to alter the meaning. I retained the full meaning, without even altering a single letter. I just chopped off the redundant portion. But since I provided the link to the full definition numerous times, I'm simply going to argue I provided the full definition numerous times. You're lying by not admitting I've done so.

But, as you're just a chatbot, I guess there's not much point in this petty side argument.

He lived to 82 you moron; US life expectancy at birth 1930 was 58 years.

The best evidence we have, which is still pretty fucking poor, is that vegetarianism offers no health benefit.

Western vegetarians do a cluster of other known beneficial things compared to health-indifferent omnivores. When you study the health benefit of vegetarianism, you're actually studying the health benefit of (on average) exercising more, eating more grean leafy vegetables, eating vitamin supplements, eating more nuts, eating more fruits, drinking less sugary beverages, eating less candy, eating less table fat, drinking more wine, eating more legumes etc. There are so many confounding factors that you can't make heads or tails of it.

However, if you look in other areas of the world where people don't eat meat for religious reasons but eat an otherwise normal diet, there is no benefit or in some cases a detriment(B-12 deficient diets causes heart disease).

If HadCrut3 was global - moron - then it would not have omitted large regions of the north and south poles, and it wouldn't have been replaced with HadCrut4 which does a better job of including the polar regions in total.

As I've shown to you numerous time - moron - the Met Office Hadley Centre claims it is a global dataset and they state to use it for current data.

"It's a standard global climatological dataset." - Uba

Indeed.

You have been told this repeatedly. Your failure to correct your past mistakes, and your insistance on repeating those mistakes when you have been corrected, is the behavior of a congenital liar.

I have never encountered a VendiTard who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

"This is another VendiTard lie. I caught him ,red-handed, lying about cherry crop damage that hadn't occured." - Uba

UbVonTard was provided with multiple links documenting the crop losses.

He claimed that the reports were lies and that there was no frost damage.

More Venditard lies. I challenged him at the time to provide even one reference to his then claimed crop damage. He couldn't provide any. And a Google search couldn't find any either. But crop damage did occur about 6 weeks later.

"Most of those are taglines from Vendicar Decarian that I simply repost back to him." This is not accurate. I carefully looked back through the thread - and selected language that you had initiated.

Either you are lying, or you failed to make the association.

Each of those words were insults - that you yourself initiated towards another poster.

"Tard" is Vendicar Decarian's own catchphrase. So are most of the rest. I generally only initiate with "idiot" or "moron."

And so I acknowledge that I have been guilty of insulting other posters in the past - for which I apologize. I now believe that kind of dialogue undermines my credibility, and justifies others for ignoring anything I have to say further.

I agree. But when the other party initiates and initiates and initiates, it's only natural to strike back occasionally.

I mean just look at Vendicar's posts. They're practically dripping with vile condemnations.

I was trying to point out that you so clearly try to take the moral high ground with your claim of only being interested in truth, and facts, and science. You state that name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue. You then engage in the exact behavior you criticize. And then you dismiss the contradiction as - those are just tag lines I posted back. Odd!

Only because it's true. I generally do not initiate, but I will defend myself. I mean just look at the numerous lies Vendicar has been saying about me. Wouldn't you defend yourself under the same circumstances?

Anyway, if you would like to engage in a cordial discussion, I would very much enjoy participating. And I hope it would serve as an example to the rest of the forum members.

He did the same thing with the ongoing U.S. drought. Claiming that crops were at record highs.

At the time, they were. I even provided current agricultural reports that talked about expected bumper harvests. Sadly, much of the expected harvest was lost.

He did the same thing when he repeatedly claimed that last year's U.S. winter that was missing a winter, was "in no way unusual."

It wasn't unusual at the time. And it's still only the fourth warmest U.S. winter. Only as it lead into an unusually warm and dry Spring did it become apparent it was more than just a fleeting condition.

This would be similar to you claiming that the average height of people was falling by 2 inches per decade when in fact your numbers show that the real trend could be anywhere between an increase of 22 inches a decade or a shrinkage of 18 inches per year.

No it isn't. It's more like measuring every single person over time and making a conclusion based on averaging the data. The data is unequivocal.

With errors like that, there is no statistical validity to a claim of a shrinkage of 2 inches per decade.

The only error lies in your interpretation.

You show a near zero ability to understand basic grade school statistics beyond an ability to compute simple averages. Your ability to conceive of any other kind of statistic is ZERO.

HadCrut3 simply "OMITS" polar regions for which they had no coverage at the time.

Another lie. HADCrut3 incorporates some polar temperatures.

By omitting a region the data set becomes only a subset of the true globe.

Generally, all global datasets omit most of these regions. Some "estimate" the polar temperatures (make up numbers), while HADCrut3 sticks with the measured values within their grid parameters.

"There are very few observations in the Arctic and Antarctic. GISS attempts to estimate temperatures in these areas, HadCRUT3 does not. This is the major source of difference between the analyses, ...There is a third global analysis produced by NCDC that also uses interpolation to fill in some of the gaps." - Met Office

The temperatures on James Ross Island are determined through proxies such as relative isotopic abundances in mollusk shells that were growing at the time, the with of growth rings in those shells, the size and type of carbonate grains in the soil, and a host of other measurements.

Yeah, like that's a good substitute for a thermometer.

VendiTard is not only ignorant of early high school statistics, but ignorant of science in general.

Repeating, ad nauseam, the same fallacies over and over and over and over and over does not make them any more true -which is to say- they remain fallacies even by the most charitable definition, but are really just lies, ubybooby, since you knowingly misrepresent them as facts.

And your claim of employment by an environmental organization does not establish superior knowledge, credentials, or credibility.

This is known to everyone here, and the Last Word does not magically transmute your tissue of lies into the incorruptible gold of Truth.